In the Supreme Court of the United States
|
|
- Jessica Lamb
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NO In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. Petitioner, REGINALD DEXTER CARR, JR., Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER November 2014 DEREK SCHMIDT Attorney General of Kansas STEPHEN R. McALLISTER Solicitor General of Kansas (Counsel of Record) KRISTAFER R. AILSLIEGER Deputy Solicitor General NATALIE CHALMERS Assistant Solicitor General DAVID LOWDEN Chief Assistant District Attorney 18 th Kansas Judicial District 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Topeka, KS (785) Counsel for Petitioner Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C
2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii REPLY BRIEF... 1 I. THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT S DECISION REGARDING THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES RESTED SOLELY ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS A. The Kansas Supreme Court s Decision Explicitly Rested on Eighth Amendment Grounds B. The Kansas Supreme Court s Decision Does Not Rest On An Independent And Adequate State Ground C. Review Also Is Warranted Because Of The Decision s Severe Impact On Existing Kansas Death Sentences II. THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE HOLDING ADDS TO AN EXISTING SPLIT OF AUTHORITY AND IS THE LAW IN KANSAS GOING FORWARD... 6 III. THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE SEVERANCE BASED ON THE JURY S ABILITY TO CONSIDER MERCY.. 7 CONCLUSION... 9
3 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (1984)... 5 Kansas v. Cheever, 134 S. Ct. 596 (2013)... 7 Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006)... 5 Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S (1983)... 5 State v. Carr, 331 P.3d 544 (2014)... 4 State v. Gleason, 329 P.3d 1102 (2014)... 2, 3, 4 Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949)... 7 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES K.S.A U.S. Const. amend. VIII... passim
4 1 REPLY BRIEF This case involves three important constitutional issues and affects two-thirds of the criminal defendants sentenced to death in Kansas. Respondent Reginald Carr, however, argues that this Court should deny review for three reasons, none of which withstand scrutiny: (1) the Kansas Supreme Court s decision requiring the jury to be affirmatively instructed that the mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt was a matter of state law and is an error unlikely to occur again; (2) although there is a split of authority on whether the Confrontation Clause applies in the selection phase of capital sentencing proceedings, the issue does not control disposition of this case and the Kansas Supreme Court was correct in holding that the Clause does apply; and (3) the Kansas Supreme Court created no new law when it held the Eighth Amendment required severance here. Respondent s reasoning is wrong on all three claims. First, the Kansas Supreme Court unquestionably decided the jury instruction issue on Eighth Amendment grounds, adding to a split of authority. Second, that court s holding on the Confrontation Clause applies to all future Kansas capital prosecutions and adds to an existing split of authority. Third, that court s severance holding, based on the Eighth Amendment, broke new ground and departs from federal precedent. The Court should grant review of all three questions presented in the State s petition.
5 2 I. THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT S DECISION REGARDING THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES RESTED SOLELY ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS. A. The Kansas Supreme Court s Decision Explicitly Rested on Eighth Amendment Grounds. Respondent incorrectly argues that the Kansas Supreme Court s decision in Gleason, and thus in this case, rested on State law grounds. This misreading is refuted by that court s Gleason opinion: The district court s instruction on mitigating circumstances failed to affirmatively inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And the penalty-phase instructions as a whole exacerbated the error because they referred only to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof. Under these circumstances, we conclude a reasonable likelihood exists that the jury applied the mitigating circumstances instruction in a manner precluding individual jurors from properly considering relevant mitigating evidence as required by the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, we vacate Gleason s death sentence and remand for resentencing. State v. Gleason, 329 P.3d 1102, 1148 (2014) (emphasis added).
6 3 Prior to reaching this conclusion, the court held: Notably, Kleypas first statement-that any mitigating circumstance instruction must inform the jury that mitigating instructions need to be proved only to the satisfaction of the individual juror in the juror s sentencing decision and not beyond a reasonable doubt, both preserves the statute s favorable distinction and protects a capital defendant s Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing by ensuring jurors are not precluded from considering all relevant mitigating evidence. [Citation omitted.] Id. at 1147 (emphasis added). Then, in this case, the court reiterated that it found an Eighth Amendment violation: In Kansas, a district judge must instruct a penalty phase jury in a capital case not only that it need not be unanimous on the existence of a mitigating circumstance but also that a mitigating circumstance need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Gleason, No. 97,296, 299 Kan.,, 329 P.3d 1102 (filed July 18, 2014) (slip op. at 82 86) (discussing Scott, 286 Kan. at , 183 P.3d 801; Kleypas, 272 Kan. at 1078, 40 P.3d 139); see also K.S.A (State expressly burdened with proving existence of aggravating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt; statute silent on standard of proof on mitigating circumstance). When nothing in the instructions mentions any burden other than beyond a reasonable doubt, jurors may be prevented
7 4 from giving meaningful effect or a reasoned moral response to mitigating evidence, implicating a defendant s right to individualized sentencing under the Eighth Amendment. Gleason, 299 Kan. at, 329 P.3d 1102 (slip op. at 85) (citing Scott, 286 Kan. at 107, 183 P.3d 801). This is unacceptable. Were we not already vacating R. Carr s death sentence on Count 2 and remanding the case because of Judge Clark s failure to sever the penalty phase, error on this issue would have forced us to do so. See Gleason, 299 Kan. at, 329 P.3d 1102 (slip op. at 85). In any new penalty phase on remand, the district judge must ensure that jurors understand that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Carr, 331 P.3d 544, (2014) (emphasis added). There is simply no support for a contention that the court s decision below rested on any ground other than the Eighth Amendment. B. The Kansas Supreme Court s Decision Does Not Rest On An Independent And Adequate State Ground. Contrary to respondent s misguided contention that there are independent and adequate state grounds to sustain the Kansas Supreme Court s decision, Opp , the lower court s decision rests solely and exclusively on federal constitutional grounds. At best, respondent can wishfully assert that the Kansas Supreme Court might have been able to rely on potential state grounds. But the fact that state law
8 5 arguments could potentially be made if this Court reverses on the federal constitutional issue and remands the case does not demonstrate in any way that the decision the State is asking this Court to review rests on an independent and adequate state law ground. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, (1983). There simply is no plausible claim that the Kansas Supreme Court decided this issue on the basis of an independent and adequate state law ground. See Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380, 381 n.a1 (1984). C. Review Also Is Warranted Because Of The Decision s Severe Impact On Existing Kansas Death Sentences. Respondent invites this Court to decline review because the issue allegedly is not likely to arise in future Kansas capital prosecutions. This argument ignores, however, the fact that the decision below will invalidate the death sentences of six of the nine defendants currently on death row in Kansas. Moreover, a number of states, including California, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas, have affirmatively held the jury is not required to be instructed that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Kansas Supreme Court s decision, which rests on Eighth Amendment grounds, calls these courts holdings into question. To avoid this unnecessary contribution to a crazy quilt of federal death penalty jurisprudence, review is warranted. See Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 185 (2006) (Scalia, J., concurring) ( Turning a blind eye to federal constitutional error, allowing it to permeate in varying fashion each State Supreme
9 6 Court s jurisprudence, would change the uniform law of the land into a crazy quilt. ) II. THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE HOLDING ADDS TO AN EXISTING SPLIT OF AUTHORITY AND IS THE LAW IN KANSAS GOING FORWARD. Although respondent acknowledges a split of authority on the Confrontation Clause issue, he nonetheless urges this Court to deny review because the issue is not determinative in this case (given that the court below found other errors that required reversal of his sentence). But the Kansas Supreme Court explicitly recognized the split of authority on this question and chose a side, i.e., it reached a legal conclusion as a matter of federal constitutional law. That holding will apply to all Kansas capital cases now pending and brought in the future, and it is an important question that warrants this Court s review. As respondent concedes, here the State used hearsay evidence during the selection phase to contest Reginald s proposed mitigating circumstances. (The State relied on the guilt-phase trial evidence, all of which was subject to full confrontation, to establish aggravating circumstances.) The relaxed evidentiary rules in the selection phase permitted Reginald to admit hearsay evidence to support his mitigating circumstances. These relaxed rules benefit both parties and should not be used as both a shield and a sword for the defendant. Because Reginald had and used the opportunity to present hearsay evidence in support of his mitigating circumstances, the State should have the
10 7 same opportunity to rebut his presentation with evidence in kind. Deciding whether a death sentence is appropriate is an unquestionably important decision. But this Court long ago held that, in reaching this decision, the jury should have access to all relevant information, including hearsay evidence. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949). Here, the State is only requesting a rule of parity, not any sort of unfair advantage for the State. If Reginald Carr can use hearsay evidence to support his mitigating circumstances, the State should be permitted to use hearsay evidence to rebut and counter his evidence. To that end, the principle here is strikingly similar to the rule the Court recently and unanimously reiterated in Kansas v. Cheever, 134 S. Ct. 596, 601 (2013), that the State must be permitted to introduce rebuttal expert testimony to counter a defendant s introduction of expert testimony on mental status. In any event, the Kansas Supreme Court plainly ruled on the question, there is a demonstrated split of authority, and the issue warrants this Court s review. III. THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE SEVERANCE BASED ON THE JURY S ABILITY TO CONSIDER MERCY. As explained in the State s petition for a writ of certiorari, the Kansas Supreme Court effectively announced a per se rule holding (1) the Eighth Amendment requires severance during the sentencing proceedings in death penalty cases (2) because the Eighth Amendment also requires the jury to consider
11 8 mercy in determining the moral culpability of each codefendant. Never has this Court endorsed such a per se rule requiring severance, nor has this Court ever endorsed the Kansas Supreme Court s rationale for the rule, i.e., that the Eighth Amendment requires juries to consider mercy in determining whether a death sentence is appropriate. Each of these conclusions of the Kansas Supreme Court creates new law in death penalty jurisprudence, or effectively create splits of authority on these questions, and thus warrant this Court s review. ***** Ultimately, this Court should grant review on the three important and unresolved questions presented in Kansas s petition for a writ of certiorari. The best the respondent can do is invite the Court to completely misread the Kansas Supreme Court s decision and allow federal death penalty jurisprudence to develop in a crazy quilt fashion.
12 9 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in both Kansas s petition for a writ of certiorari and this reply, Kansas requests that the Court grant plenary review of all three questions presented. Respectfully submitted, DEREK SCHMIDT Attorney General of Kansas STEPHEN R. McALLISTER Solicitor General of Kansas (Counsel of Record) KRISTAFER R. AILSLIEGER Deputy Solicitor General NATALIE CHALMERS Assistant Solicitor General DAVID LOWDEN Chief Assistant District Attorney 18 th Kansas Judicial District 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Topeka, KS (785) steve.mcallister@trqlaw.com Counsel for Petitioner November 2014
In the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-449 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. JONATHAN D. CARR, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 14-452 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. SIDNEY J. GLEASON, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER
More informationKansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014
K a n s a s L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014 O-1 Tort Claims Act O-2 Death Penalty in Kansas O-3 Kansas Administrative Procedure Act O-4 Sex
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 103,083. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MATTHEW ASTORGA, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,083 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MATTHEW ASTORGA, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Kansas' former statutory procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,270. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRENT L. ALFORD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,270 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRENT L. ALFORD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court applies a de novo standard of review to a district
More information*** CAPITAL CASE *** No
*** CAPITAL CASE *** No. 16-9541 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY CLARK, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT PETITION FOR
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,341. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TERRY RAY HAYES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,341 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TERRY RAY HAYES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Because the 2013 amendments to the sentencing provisions of K.S.A.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-394 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF TEXAS, PETITIONER v. JERRY HARTFIELD ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
More informationReligious Beliefs, Motion for Voir Dire on Sentence Length, and Motion for Voir
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS CRIMINAL COURT DEPARTMENT STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff, VS. FRAZIER GLENN CROSS, JR., Defendant. 14CR853 Div. 17 STATE S BRIEF RE: JURY SELECTION COMES NOW
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 12-374 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCHOLASTIC BOOK CLUBS, INC., Petitioner, v. RICHARD H. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-761 d IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LESLIE GALLOWAY, III, v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Petitioner, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI REPLY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge AFFIRMED
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA DUANE LYNN, Petitioner, v. Respondent Judge, HON. PETER C. REINSTEIN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Real Parties in Interest.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-1285 TROY VICTORINO, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [March 8, 2018] Troy Victorino, a prisoner under sentences of death, appeals the portions of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. RUFINO ANTONIO ESTRADA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v.
No. 15-1232 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RUFINO ANTONIO ESTRADA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More information(a) Except as provided in K.S.A Supp and , and amendments thereto, if a
Special Session of 2013 HOUSE BILL NO. AN ACT concerning crimes, punishment and criminal procedure; relating to sentencing of certain persons to mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 40 or 50 years;
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
No. 16-1337 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONTE LAMAR JONES, v. Petitioner, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Virginia Supreme Court REPLY IN
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,910 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. HARLAN E. MCINTIRE, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,910 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS HARLAN E. MCINTIRE, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Kingman District
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 15-324 In the Supreme Court of the United States JO GENTRY, et al., v. MARGARET RUDIN, Petitioners, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 532 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTHUR CALDERON, WARDEN v. RUSSELL COLEMAN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,753. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ANDREW TODD ROTH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,753 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ANDREW TODD ROTH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT If a district judge pronouncing sentence after probation revocation
More informationPhillips v. Araneta, Arizona Supreme Court No. CV PR (AZ 6/29/2004) (AZ, 2004)
Page 1 KENNETH PHILLIPS, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE LOUIS ARANETA, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Respondent Judge, STATE OF ARIZONA, Real Party
More informationNo. 116,530 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ALCENA M. DAWSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 116,530 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ALCENA M. DAWSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Whether a prior conviction was properly classified as a person
More informationNo. 98,736 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS GUNNER LONG, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 98,736 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRAVIS GUNNER LONG, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-1153 In the Supreme Court of the United States EDMUND LACHANCE, v. Petitioner, MASSACHUSETTS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts REPLY
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-68 SONNY BOY OATS, JR., Petitioner, vs. JULIE L. JONES, etc., Respondent. [May 25, 2017] Sonny Boy Oats, Jr., was tried and convicted for the December 1979
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,648 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MICHAEL PORTSCHE, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,648 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL PORTSCHE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court;
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,341 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,341 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant, v. SCOTT SPRADLING, et al., Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2016. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 108,233. EDMOND L. HAYES, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,233 EDMOND L. HAYES, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT When the crime for which a defendant is being sentenced was committed
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-1229 JEFFREY GLENN HUTCHINSON, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [March 15, 2018] Jeffrey Glenn Hutchinson appeals an order of the circuit court summarily
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. BRENT RAY BREWER, Petitioner,
No. 05-11287 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BRENT RAY BREWER, Petitioner, v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationWhile the common law has banned executing the insane for centuries, 1 the U.S. Supreme Court did not hold that the Eighth Amendment
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS LOWER COURT FINDING THAT MENTALLY ILL PRISONER IS COMPETENT TO BE EXECUTED. Ferguson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 716 F.3d
More informationCase 5:06-cr TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH
Case 5:06-cr-00019-TBR Document 101 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 1 of 11 CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06 CR-00019-R UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-1097 In the Supreme Court of the United States ESTATE OF WILBERT L. HENSON, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KAYE KRAJCA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationPetitioner, Respondent.
No. 16-5294 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAMES EDMOND MCWILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Respondent. On Petition for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 103,915. MARTIN MILLER, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,915 MARTIN MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1484 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TERRANCE CARTER, v. Petitioner, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Respondent. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana REPLY BRIEF FOR
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,051. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAMON HORTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 115,051 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DAMON HORTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT A motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(1),
More informationNo. 110,421 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ROBERT L. VERGE, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 110,421 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ROBERT L. VERGE, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Although Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2151,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-981 In the Supreme Court of the United States NICHOLAS TODD SUTTON, Petitioner, v. ROLAND COLSON, WARDEN, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,968 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. LEE ANDREW MITCHELL-PENNINGTON, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,968 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS LEE ANDREW MITCHELL-PENNINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 15-8842 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOBBY CHARLES PURCELL, Petitioner STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS REPLY BRIEF IN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION '
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 40977391 E-Filed 05/02/2016 04:33:09 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LARRY DARNELL PERRY, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC16-547 RECEIVED, 05/02/2016 04:33:47 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationNo A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee. vs. JAMES EDEN Defendant-Appellant
No. 12-108615-A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUt CAl OL G ( RE CLERI( OF APPe'L I J _ EN ATI- COURTS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JAMES EDEN Defendant-Appellant REPLY BRIEF
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,697 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CARLON D. MCGINN, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,697 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CARLON D. MCGINN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court;
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-931 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- THE STATE OF NEVADA,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,143 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MARVIN DAVIS JR., Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 119,143 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MARVIN DAVIS JR., Appellant, v. KANSAS PRISONER REVIEW BOARD, SAM CLINE, Warden, et al. Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC91581 TROY MERCK, JR., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [July 13, 2000] PER CURIAM. Troy Merck, Jr. appeals the death sentence imposed upon him after a remand for
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,315. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JIMMY LEE MURDOCK, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,315 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JIMMY LEE MURDOCK, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Under K.S.A. 22-3504, the legality of a sentence is controlled
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 101,198. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DARRON EDWARDS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 101,198 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DARRON EDWARDS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3210(e)(1)(A),
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,037 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellee, SHAUN BARRETT, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,037 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF DODGE CITY, Appellee, v. SHAUN BARRETT, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Ford District
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ****************************************************
No. 514PA11-2 TWENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA **************************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) From Mecklenburg County ) No. COA15-684 HARRY SHAROD
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,493. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CHRISTOPHER J. ALLISON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,493 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER J. ALLISON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT A sentence that conforms to the applicable statutory provision
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 17-387 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE, v. Petitioner, SHARLINE LUNDGREN AND RAY LUNDGREN, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
More information2015 CO 71. No. 13SC523, Rutter v. People Sentencing Habitual Criminal Proportionality Review Criminal Law.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
PER CURIAM. Supreme Court of Florida No. SC15-1256 WILLIAM M. KOPSHO, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. SC15-1762 WILLIAM M. KOPSHO, Petitioner, vs. JULIE L. JONES, etc., Respondent. [January
More informationNo. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * * * * * *
Judgment rendered May 17, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 14-197 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Petitioner, v. ADDOLFO DAVIS, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2018 CASE NO.: SC17-869 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 481996CF005639000AOX STEVEN MAURICE EVANS vs. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Appellant s Motion for
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,702. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,702 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,540 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ROBERT JOE BARNES, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,540 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ROBERT JOE BARNES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Finney District Court;
More informationNo. 107,070 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, SAMANTHA THOMPSON COTY, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 107,070 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. SAMANTHA THOMPSON COTY, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court has unlimited review of whether a
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 08-598 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID BOBBY, WARDEN, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL BIES, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REPLY
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-840 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GERALD L. WERTH, Petitioner, v. CINDI CURTIN, WARDEN, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04 1170 KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL LEE MARSH, II ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS [June 26, 2006] JUSTICE SOUTER,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NO. 12-609 In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF KANSAS, v. SCOTT D. CHEEVER, Petitioner, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,478. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ZACHARY EISENHOUR, SR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,478 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ZACHARY EISENHOUR, SR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT If the Kansas Supreme Court denies a petition for review of
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-126 In the Supreme Court of the United States GREG MCQUIGGIN, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. FLOYD PERKINS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 105,685. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CHARLES HANEY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,685 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES HANEY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Pursuant to K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3424(e)(4), a convicted criminal
More informationNo. 111,580 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TERRY D. MCINTYRE, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 111,580 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TERRY D. MCINTYRE, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under K.S.A. 22-4506(b), if the district court finds that
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-458 In the Supreme Court of the United States ROCKY DIETZ, PETITIONER v. HILLARY BOULDIN ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REPLY BRIEF
More informationAppellant, Appellee. [February 16, Jack Dempsey Ferrell appeals his conviction and sentence of
No. 81,668 JACK DEMPSEY FERRELL, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 16, 19951 PER CURIAM. Jack Dempsey Ferrell appeals his conviction and sentence of death for the first-degree murder
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-878 MILO A. ROSE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [July 19, 2018] Discharged counsel appeals the postconviction court s order granting Milo A. Rose
More informationNO ======================================== IN THE
NO. 16-9424 ======================================== IN THE Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Gregory Nidez Valencia, Jr. and Joey Lee
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFERSON DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. VERNON MADISON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1227 In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHAEL D. CREWS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER, v. ANTHONY JOSEPH FARINA, RESPONDENT. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
More informationNo IN THE DAVID LEON RILEY, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
No. 13-132 IN THE DAVID LEON RILEY, v. Petitioner, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER Patrick
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 99 5746 LONNIE WEEKS, JR., PETITIONER v. RONALD J. AN- GELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
More informationSTATE V. GRELL: PLACING THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS TO PROVE MENTAL RETARDATION IN CAPITAL CASES
STATE V. GRELL: PLACING THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANTS TO PROVE MENTAL RETARDATION IN CAPITAL CASES Mary Hollingsworth INTRODUCTION In determining eligibility for the death penalty, Arizona law requires defendants
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,184 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JONATHAN EDWARDS, Appellant, MIKE T. LOGAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,184 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JONATHAN EDWARDS, Appellant, v. MIKE T. LOGAN, Appellee. ATTORNEY GENERAL DEREK SCHMIDT, Intervenor/Appellee. MEMORANDUM
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-628 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BASSAM YACOUB SALMAN,
More informationNo. 51,811-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered January 10, 2018. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,811-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. Defendant Below, Appellant, Nos. 516 and 525, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DWAYNE WEEKS, Defendant Below, Appellant, Nos. 516 and 525, 2000 v. Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for STATE OF DELAWARE, New
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,434 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JARON L. GANT, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,434 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JARON L. GANT, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Wyandotte District Court;
More informationELECTRONICALLY Fl LED 2015 Nov 13 PM 2:45 CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER:
ELECTRONICALLY Fl LED 2015 Nov 13 PM 2:45 CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: 113991 No. 15-113991-A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ANGEL UNRUH
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2005. Christopher Scott Emmett, Petitioner, against Record No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIAM MURPHY ALLEN JR., v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. SC06-1644 L.T. CASE NO. 1D04-4578 Respondent. JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT CHARLES J. CRIST, JR.
More informationKansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014
K a n s a s L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014 F-1 Sentencing F-2 Kansas Prison Population and Capacity F-3 Prisoner Review Board Corrections
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 118, ,313 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 118,312 118,313 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JERRICK PHILLIPS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ellis District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 104,516. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TIFFANY A. JONES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 104,516 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TIFFANY A. JONES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. A criminal defendant is denied due process if the State fails
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1110 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BLOOMINGDALE S, INC., v. Petitioner, NANCY VITOLO, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,851 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. GIANG T. NGUYEN, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,851 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS GIANG T. NGUYEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Finney District
More informationNo. 14- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October Term, 2014 SCOTT PANETTI, -v- STATE OF TEXAS, MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
No. 14- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 2014 SCOTT PANETTI, -v- STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioner, Respondent. MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION CAPITAL CASE: EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 115,629. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JAMES LEE JAMERSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 115,629 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAMES LEE JAMERSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Interpretation of sentencing statutes is a question of law
More information